Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Allegedly Sought Non-Poaching Deal With Palm

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the hands-off-or-at-least-palms-off dept.

The Almighty Buck 181

theodp writes "A Bloomberg report that Apple CEO Steve Jobs proposed a possibly illegal truce with Palm against poaching their respective employees is sure to pique the interest of the US Department of Justice, which already is investigating whether Google, Yahoo, Apple, Genentech and other tech companies conspired to keep others from stealing their top talent. 'Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal,' former Palm CEO Ed Colligan reportedly told Jobs in August 2007." The article notes that Apple was probably reacting to Palm's hiring of Jon Rubenstein, who had been instrumental in developing the iPod and went on to spearhead the Pre for Palm (and has now become Palm's chairman and CEO). "It's the story about the importance of charismatic engineers," said veteran Silicon Valley forecaster Paul Saffo. "People don't work for Palm. They work for Jon Rubinstein. One has to wonder how Steve Jobs ever let Jon Rubinstein leave."

cancel ×

181 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

At Apple, employees just work (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145587)

Apple wasn't looking to screw over their employees. They merely wished to make the Apple employment experience more simple and elegant. With other employers, employees must make complicated and confusing decisions about raises and other job opportunities, resolve conflicts between competing employers, etc. At Apple, it's a simple "You work here" interface.

Re:At Apple, employees just work (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29145599)

One has to wonder how Steve Jobs ever let Jon Rubinstein leave."

Simple...nobody, not even Steve Jobs, can outJew a Jew .

captcha: remorse

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:At Apple, employees just work (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29145647)

It seems like giving the Jew more money would've worked.

Re:At Apple, employees just work (0, Troll)

Cornelius the Great (555189) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145683)

Apple wasn't looking to screw over their employees. They merely wished to make the Apple employment experience more simple and elegant. With other employers, employees must make complicated and confusing decisions about raises and other job opportunities, resolve conflicts between competing employers,

By colluding with competitors? If a certain employee is so valuable, then Apple should be willing to compensate the employee enough to stay there. Not make backroom deals with other companies.

At Apple, it's a simple "You work here" interface.

And what if you quit, get fired, or laid off? Why should some backroom deal between Jobs and some other CEOs prevent you from landing on your feet?

This goes beyond non-compete clauses. At least with a non-compete, the employees sign a form acknowledging trade secrets and agreeing not to work for competitors. Deals like these, they have no say or control over.

Re:At Apple, employees just work (3, Insightful)

dsharp (117993) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145791)

Whoosh!

Re:At Apple, employees just work (1)

MaerD (954222) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145971)

This goes beyond non-compete clauses. At least with a non-compete, the employees sign a form acknowledging trade secrets and agreeing not to work for competitors. Deals like these, they have no say or control over.

...And, at least in the state I'm in, a non-compete isn't worth the paper it's written unless you're getting paid for the period it's covering.

Re:At Apple, employees just work (5, Funny)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145707)

ah yes, the infamous iWork program. I've heard good and bad things about this program.

Last I read, iWork is not compatible with iLife, unless you're running the iWork is iLife RC2.

I have not updated to that level of iLife, thankfully.

Re:At Apple, employees just work (4, Funny)

Tim4444 (1122173) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145811)

I heard the iWork doesn't have a sleep mode. You can only use the buddy device iBreakForCoffee.

Re:At Apple, employees just work (3, Funny)

TheGreenNuke (1612943) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147485)

On top of that, iWork will not work on mobile devices and does not support roaming licenses.

Re:At Apple, employees just work (5, Insightful)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147857)

Is it just me or is it more fun bashing Apple than Microsoft?

Re:At Apple, employees just work (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29145733)

"At Apple, it's a simple "You work here" interface."

At least it was just a potential legal agreement.

I love how it was suggested in William Gibson's novel _Count Zero_. Corporations defended against employee migrations to competitors with imprisonment (you worked in plush headquarters you weren't allowed to leave), military force (railgun), brain bomb implants (leave, die, a la MI3), and my favorite, the suggested (ex-)employee isn't harmed, just some (biological) agent is released that kills everyone around them that helped to extract or employ them in the future if employee doesn't maintain his injections of protein X which we've made them "dependent" on.

Poaching? Shrug.

Re:At Apple, employees just work (2, Insightful)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145815)

It is only our current standing in technology that prevents some of these being employed :)

Re:At Apple, employees just work (1)

kuactet (1017816) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146317)

I see what you did there.

Re:At Apple, employees just work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29146381)

I love Count Zero. The tech is just as cool as plausible, and the writing is razor sharp. Gibson's best book, edging out Neuromancer, if you ask me.

Peace, Love and Anti-Competitive Behavior (5, Funny)

furytrader (1512517) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145619)

Indirectly eliminating your vocational opportunities by working at Apple: that's not a bug in your employment contract, it's a feature.

I have a non-poaching deal with my palm (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29145621)

I'm only allowed to jerk myself off.

Re:I have a non-poaching deal with my palm (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29145747)

Apropos jerking off, I bet tonight a lot of Apple fanbois will be jerking off to the Apple logo with tears in their eyes. "I love you but you can be so mean!" :D

Apparently the reply was - (5, Funny)

musefrog (1471169) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145629)

Jobs: "If a CEO does it, it's not illegal."

Re:Apparently the reply was - (5, Insightful)

soundhack (179543) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145749)

I would guess that it would be more likely "If Steve Jobs does it, it's not illegal"

Re:Apparently the reply was - (5, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146445)

Don't think "illegal". Think "legally different".

Re:Apparently the reply was - (5, Funny)

Nihixul (1430251) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147873)

It's merely iLegal.

Re:Apparently the reply was - (3, Interesting)

WaywardGeek (1480513) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146101)

Actually, this sort of agreement is common practice, even in Silicon Valley. One example: I left QuickLogic to join Synplicity. Soon after, all my friends were joining Synplicity. QuickLogic was a customer of Synplicity. QuickLogic's CEO had a talk with Synplicity's CEO, and soon after I was told that we don't hire QuickLogic people any more. BTW, both QuickLogic and Synplicity were fantastic companies to work for back then. We'd simply stripped (without meaning too) most of the software talent from QuickLogic, so it's understandable their CEO was pissed. Regardless of the law, most companies can't afford too piss off their customers.

The only thing strange about that situation was it's technically illegal in California. However, such practice is perfectly legal here in NC where I live now. My old boss had an employee in our group that was very good. My boss went to Avanti, and told them never, under any conditions, would he allow that employee to switch to Avanti. You see, in NC, most employees have legally binding non-competition clauses in their employment agreements, which tend to stand up in court, so if you want to change jobs, your boss can threaten sue you directly. This is one of the main reasons high-tech startups suck wind here. Anyway, Avanti saw my old boss's passion about this one guy, so they offered him a job he couldn't refuse right away. D'oh!

It's certainly illegal in CA (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29145639)

These cases come up all the time, they fall under restraint of trade. If Apple want to stop someone working elsewhere by contract shenanigans, they have to pay that employee until the contract dates expires.

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (5, Informative)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145727)

While it may be true that a company can't legally prevent you from moving over to a competitor of your own free will, there are clauses in employment contracts that seek to prevent an ex-employee from poaching current employees away.

What's interesting is how the word 'poaching' has gone from the illegal murder of animals while trespassing to stealing away of top talent. The evolution of this word as well as 'hunting' and other terms typically associated with big game hunting have become part of our employment lexicon.

I bring this up because the analogy holds to some extent. Top level developers are, in a sense, hunted for their skills. While the bullet isn't what they get, they do get offers ranging from the low 6 figures to the slightly higher than that 6 figures. On the other hand, designers are paid much more than that. Take any marketing company as an example of top designers making money hand over fist. OSS could never compete with that, since there isn't that kind of money in this industry to pay for top developers. So you get the kind of brain-dead design as we see here on the /. front page. Seriously, why is there a bar with a tiny +- character there? Why is it separating the summary from the tags and comments links?

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29145933)

I've just got back from holiday, it seems tagging doesn't work now.

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29147241)

tagging, among other things, is broken in the simple mode, you have to enable bloated mode.

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29148113)

tagging, among other things, is broken in the simple mode, you have to enable bloated mode.

Fuckshitbugger. I daren't ask what doing that will break.

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (4, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146059)

OSS could never compete with that, since there isn't that kind of money in this industry to pay for top developers. So you get the kind of brain-dead design as we see here on the /. front page. Seriously, why is there a bar with a tiny +- character there?

It costs nothing to leave things the heck alone. Knowing when not to tinker with things is apparently much more expensive.

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (1)

cheftw (996831) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147553)

Look guys, they finally fixed the "Anonymous Cowardon" issue.

Can we not just be thankful for that?

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (1)

Atrox666 (957601) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146167)

It's simply price fixing on the labour market and should result in pound me in the ass prison. Fortunately laws are only for poor people.

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29148079)

I think perhaps you mean UNforunately.

Unless of course you enjoy the idea that the law doesn't apply to corporations or the rich.

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29146215)

Huh? According to the recruiter I was definitely covered by an anti-poaching agreement between Lucasarts and my former employer even though I had left that employer (and moved to a third country) over a year ago. Last time I checked Lucasarts was in California (but this was years ago).

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146531)

After a quick check to see what you are talking about, I recommend this: try holding your mouse over the plus/minus thingy until the tooltip pops up. Not the best design though, I'm not sure entirely what the voting does - possibly something to do with the firehose system.

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (2, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146575)

I'm confused, how can one "murder" an animal ? I can see how you can kill it (perhaps by poaching on someone else's property), but how does one "murder" a non-human ? As far as I can tell, the dictionary defines murder as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".

I get that you're against killing animals. I can even understand that, but using emotionally-charged words like 'murder' when they don't apply just weakens the rest of your argument, at least to me.

Simon.

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29146793)

whether he's against killing animals or not, you can say that killing an animal ILLEGALLY (i.e., poaching) might reasonably be likened to "murder".

maybe you think that's a stretch, and maybe it is, but i don't think it's an entirely bogus metaphor.

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29147781)

You tell 'em, tiger!

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (0, Flamebait)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147935)

I think most people, including the GP, would call livestock deaths as "killed", but would refer to having a pet killed purposefully by a neighbor as "murder".

The definition you list is arbitrary and not representative of how the term is actually used.

I'm pretty sure BadAnalogyGuy is not against killing animals in general. He was referring specifically to premeditated and illegal killing of animals. Hence "murder".

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29147975)

What's interesting is how the word 'poaching' has gone from the illegal murder of animals while trespassing to stealing away of top talent.

Can't murder an animal.

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder [wikipedia.org]

Just sayin'.

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (5, Interesting)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145757)

You're talking about the situation where Apple's contract with the employee states that said employee may not work for competitor(s).

This is different. It's either:

Palm state they won't hire anyone who works for Apple (& vice versa).

Or

Palm state they won't actively solicit current employees of Apple (& vice versa).

Since the original article is full of speculative crap and theodp's summary is full of shrill hysterics it's difficult to tell which. IANAL but I'd guess at least the second of those is probably legal.

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (4, Interesting)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146371)

The problem is that if you DON'T setup these types of agreements, and continue hiring away employees from direct competitors then you open yourself up to nasty patent/trade secret disputes. You've made a business practice of hiring employees with inside knowledge and you just set yourself up for the lawsuits.. that's why they call it "poaching'.

Many business partners have these agreements, so that suppliers aren't competing with their customers for employees on the same projects... after all, why pay another company to do a job when you can just hire their best employees?

From the slashdotter point of view, the headhunting is quite bad for YOUR career. Because these companies headhunt off each other, that means they're not looking for NEW talent (which of course there is such a shortage of!!!) preferring to hire the guy away that did the last cool project that was published, skyrocketing salaries pricing you, the mid-level employee, out of the game. Consider it like salary caps in sports. The stars make multi-million dollar deals.. the other 29 guys that practice just as hard and show up for all the games too get $75k tops ... In the same way, for each of these "rockstars" there's an army of guys making barely enough to afford living 2 hours from work (in northern California mind you).. but they make the "rockstars" look good and get the product shipped on time.

This is why the companies focus on out-of-college recruiting almost exclusively (and there aren't enough new graduates willing to work like they have 10 years experience)... so they can pay sub-market wages and dangle the "rockstar" salary, eventually, rather than looking for older, meticulous, team players that get things done on time and under budget... and don't even work OT to do it! But of course they don't work for "rockstar" wages and they don't work for "newbie" wages either.

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (2, Insightful)

grendal2 (1622049) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147635)

These types of agreements are very common within the public account realm. Every engagement letter I have signed with a CPA firms states you cannot hire their employees for a period of X years after work in completed. These are legal as the issue isn't between the employee and either company, but between the companies. So if Apple and Palm signed an agreement ( let's assume it wast was a valid contract and they had a valid reason to do for the moment) the employees would be able to leave Apple to go to Palm, but Apple would have legal recourse against Palm for damages etc. No in the accounting world these agreements are not typically enforced unless you fire you CPA firms since they really don't want to lose a client, but they do need to protect their talent. These agreement have also been part of every IT implementation contract I have signed and again they are rarely enforced by the software company, but I have put them in place the other direction to prevent the software company from poaching my business process experts etc. No if they made such an agreement without a valid contract and without a valid business relationship, they it very well might be illegal IMHO.

what (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29145663)

A load of old bollocks.

what did I say earlier? (0, Troll)

eatspoop (1604225) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145715)

I'd say this is no big surprise! http://apple.eatspoop.com/ [eatspoop.com] This is how business tends to work.

Re:what did I say earlier? (1)

eatspoop (1604225) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146071)

Insightful

This just in! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29145719)

Rob Malda sought non-poaching deal for his anus. Unfortunately it was fucked anyway.

Stating the obvious (4, Insightful)

rekoil (168689) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145729)

One has to wonder how Steve Jobs ever let Jon Rubinstein leave."

Simple - by forcing him to report to Steve Jobs.

Re:Stating the obvious (2, Interesting)

mfnickster (182520) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146695)

One has to wonder how Steve Jobs ever let Jon Rubinstein leave."

Simple - by forcing him to report to Steve Jobs.

Jobs probably just told him "You don't matter as much as you think you do, anyway." [folklore.org]

Re:Stating the obvious (3, Insightful)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147401)

It doesn't seem so easy.

"No matter how much resolve you could muster, it was still difficult to quit Apple if Steve wanted you to stay. You'd have to sit down with him for a reality distortion session, which was often effective at getting people to change their minds. One day, a few of us were talking about strategies to overcome Steve's persuasiveness."

http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Are_You_Gonna_Do_It.txt [folklore.org]

Jobs doing something illegal... (3, Interesting)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145737)

Never, why would Steve Jobs do something like that? Jobs is a cut throat CEO, who for some reason people think is so much better than Bill Gates when the two are practically the same, the difference being that at least Gates gives to charity daily, where as Jobs does not. Don't get me know I think that Apple has amazing technologies, but they are definitely overpriced when they don't need to because Jobs himself thinks he is better than so many.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (5, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145883)

Jobs is, if not an innovator, then at least very clever about which trends to follow and has built a cult of personality. He is an ass, but he's a nerd's kind of ass who admires elegance and wants to get things done.

Bill Gates is a manipulator and has built a cult of anti-personality. Of course, neither one is Jesus. They're both just some corporate masters of your capitalistic destiny. Gates, of course, is the far more successful. He has the kind of power that Jobs fantasizes about; at the top of the Gates foundation, he can alter the futures of whole nations through investment and charity... or the lack thereof.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29146187)

Ok how is the parent "Offtopic" while the GP is "Interesting"? The parent is simply continuing the discussion the GP started (including the comparison and contrast between Jobs and Gates), so either both posts deserve "Offtopic" or neither should be!

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (1, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146119)

>the difference being that at least Gates gives to charity daily, where as Jobs does not.

What? I dont even like Jobs, but I wouldnt say that. Do you have his tax records or something? People who make past a certain amount of money give quite a bit to charity because:

1. They want to.
2. Tax incentives to do so.

You can smear Jobs, but he's given more than you ever will. He may not run a massive charity, but then again he doesnt have the money Gates has.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (2, Interesting)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146313)

You are ripping on me because I don't don't give as much as Jobs? I'm not a CEO who makes millions of dollars, so you are right. And I ripped on Jobs and Gates, both were cut throat CEOs who screwed a lot of people over. I was bringing to notice that Jobs hasn't gotten as bad as a rep as Gates has gotten. Jobs is viewed as cool and hip even though he has screwed over so many and has appeared to taken part in some illegal activities along the way. And I am not a PC person or a Mac person, though I do own one of each. I primarily run Centos at home and Red Hat at work, so I am pretty neutral on that front. I'm ripping on Jobs more for being extremely arrogant, for thinking he could get away with something like this.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (0)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146391)

Unless you have tax records or some kind of cite, all you are doing is giving your uninformed opinion.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (3, Interesting)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146485)

Anything else? [wired.com] There is a link talking about it, let me know if you want anything else master and I'll be happy to oblige.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (0, Troll)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146537)

Logic 101: absense of proof is not proof of absense. Lots of rich people give anonymously, especially private people like Jobs. From the exact article you linked but evidently did not bother to fully read or comprehend:

Jobs' wife is also absent from these philanthropic lists, although she has made dozens of political donations totaling tens of thousands of dollars to the Democrats, according to the Open Secrets database.

Of course, Jobs and his wife may be giving enormous sums of money to charity anonymously. If they are funneling cash to various causes in private, their names wouldn't show up on any lists, regardless of the size of their gifts.

For a person as private as Jobs, who shuns any publicity about his family life, this seems credible. If so, however, this would make Jobs virtually unique among moguls. Richard Jolly, chairman of Giving USA Foundation, said not all billionaires give their money away, but a lot do, and most do not do it quietly.

"We see it over and over again," he said. "Very wealthy individuals do support the organizations and institutions they believe in."

Using your logic I can say, "Ive never seen him shit, so he must be a robot or an alien, as all humans need to shit."

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (1)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146783)

Why you are debating a completely off topic thing is beyond me if you really want to prove me wrong. Just looking for things in peoples posts to call out and attempt to prove wrong is what I would call a troll, but here is a pretty good explanation of why I don't think Jobs is giving hardly anything. why would one put their name to political contributions and not put their name to charitable ones. I mean the better one to put your name to would be the charitable ones, that is unless you have some hidden agenda with the political contributions, which by all means with this article might be possible. And considering Gates gave almost half of what Jobs net worth was I think he gave more. Even percentage wise, I think everyone knows Gates gives more...

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (0, Troll)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146827)

>but here is a pretty good explanation of why I don't think Jobs is giving hardly anything.

No, its bullshit character attacks based on a lack of evidence.

Unlike you, I worked in a large well-known national non-profit. I would see multi-million dollar donations come in via anonymous. Because of my position at the time I could see who they really came from. Lots of millionaires who just want some privacy in their lives. People like Jobs.

Turning privacy and modesty into "ZOMG HE DOESNT GIVE" is a dick move and I'm calling you out on it.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (1)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146921)

I didn't say he doesn't give. Just said he doesn't give daily like Gates. Gates gives more to charity still Gates is an ass who screwed over so many.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (1, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146719)

While I am at it, I think its incredibly tacky to brag about ones donations. "LOOK I AM GIVING!!" is a low move. Lots of people like Jobs like to give without putting their name on something or having some pet charity. Lots of starts with pet charities do it almost soley for the publicity. Criticizing someone because he doesnt play the PR game is 100% ridiculous in my book.

A private life should be respected and lauded not turned into a hit piece on wired and all the little geeks reflexively agreeing with it.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (-1, Troll)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146881)

Do are you banging Steve Jobs or does he just have a secret illegal deal with you, where you stick up for him on Slashdot and he gives you free iPod battery replacements.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (1)

yumyum (168683) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146539)

I believe Jobs gets paid $1 in salary at Apple. I know that this is not his complete compensation, but he is not making tons of money. He already did that ages ago.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (3, Insightful)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146631)

He gets millions from his stock options with Apple and the man is worth around 4.4 billion. Apple also pays for the use of his private jet which is around 800,000 dollars a year. His salary is $1 yes, but he gets the money from other sources.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (1, Informative)

cloudmaster (10662) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146945)

> You can smear Jobs, but he's given more than you ever will

And

> Do you have his tax records or something?

In the same post, with only a short numbered list separating the two. If you're gonna feed the trolls, at least *try* to be reasonable.

A quick google search for "steve jobs charitable contributions" comes up with a bunch of stuff indicating that Jobs doesn't donate much or anything. Here's the Wired article that's first on that list: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/01/70072 [wired.com] FTA:
"Giving USA Foundation, a philanthropy research group which publishes an annual charity survey, said Jobs does not appear on lists of gifts of $5 million or more over the last four years. Nor is his name on a list of gifts of $1 million or more compiled by Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy.

Jobs' wife is also absent from these philanthropic lists, although she has made dozens of political donations totaling tens of thousands of dollars to the Democrats, according to the Open Secrets database."

Personally, I could not care less about Steve Jobs' personal or professional life. But apparently others do care, for some reason. This is for them. :)

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (1)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147043)

Yes, I don't know how it got turned into a charity debate I was just trying the two are both cut throat CEOs, but Jobs is more of one now since Gates retired and is just a crazy philanthropist who lets out mosquitoes in auditoriums.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (3, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146447)

Jobs is a cut throat CEO

Totally true. The turtleneck is there to conceal an armoured gorget.

How could that not be illegal (2, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145929)

...proposed a possibly illegal truce with Palm against poaching their respective employees...

How could that not be illegal? It goes against everything our allegedly free market stands for. Top talent should command top dollar. Like athletes, developers have a finite number of peak production years. They should be able to work for the highest bidder.

Re:How could that not be illegal (2, Interesting)

Miros (734652) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145977)

Agreed. It's clearly illegal. The Sherman Antitrust act specifically prohibits

"[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce."

The test of this, derrived in a 1918 court case in Chicago, is along the lines of:

"Every agreement concerning trade, every regulation of trade, restrains. To bind, to restrain, is of their very essence. The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition."

All material from wikipedia article on US antitrust laws found here: wikipedia.org [wikipedia.org]

Re:How could that not be illegal (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29146003)

It goes against the ideal of the free market. But, in a truly unregulated market, there would be nothing stopping two companies colluding like this to their mutual benefit... or entering into any other kind of strange and possibly anti-competitive arrangement.

Re:How could that not be illegal (1, Interesting)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146383)

In a free-market there wouldn't be any collusion, because all information is known (ie. there are no secret agreements). An employee would join Apple knowing full well he can't be employed anywhere else. If potential employees know this, then top-talent would stay away, thus hurting Apple.

Re:How could that not be illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29147409)

Unless everyone does it...

Re:How could that not be illegal (3, Insightful)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147427)

But then what would they do?

I'm being serious. It might hurt Apple a bit, and it would hurt Palm a bit, and Microsoft a bit, and Oracle a bit, and Google a bit, but if this person declines taking a job with the colluders, then what will they do? Take work with start ups that can't actually afford to pay them the salary they demand trying to compete in already saturated markets? Engage in subsistence farming and day labor until it gets sorted out? Starve? Apple can afford to lose that person as an employee, but how long can that person afford not to be employed?

This is a symptom of the single greatest flaw in Free Market theory, and one that NOBODY has a satisfying answer to: no true capitalist would ever willingly compete if they did not have to. Market collusion allows the minimization of costs, maximization of profit, and elimination of competition with far less risk or cost than any other method. Competition and free exchange alone creating a sustainable economy free of corruption and systemic iniquity is just a libertarian wet dream (much like that one about Ayn Rand lying naked on a pile of gold bars...).

Re:How could that not be illegal (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147431)

No secrets in a free market? Since when was that a requirement?

Re:How could that not be illegal (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 5 years ago | (#29148059)

No secrets in a free market? Since when was that a requirement?

Since 1776, when Smith published Wealth of Nations. We're talking about no secret prices here, not secrets like the formula for Coke.

Re:How could that not be illegal (3, Informative)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146263)

see 'non-compete clauses'.

at least in cali, those are not legal or enforceable.

on one contract job I was about to take, the employer wanted to lock me out of working in that specific area for something like 4 years. I laughed and told him he gets ZERO years of lock-out and that this is cali and not india ;) we have -some- rules here (this is bowling, not nam, sparky; there are rules!).

I crossed out the offending lines and resubmitted the paperwork. they accepted it. they knew. and I knew. and they knew I knew ;)

non-competes are illegal in most states. don't ever sign anything with a non-compete on it. you have the RIGHT to earn bread each day, to live on, dammit.

Non-Poaching != Non-Compete (4, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146735)

see 'non-compete clauses'.

at least in cali, those are not legal or enforceable.

on one contract job I was about to take, the employer wanted to lock me out of working in that specific area for something like 4 years. I laughed and told him he gets ZERO years of lock-out and that this is cali and not india ;) we have -some- rules here (this is bowling, not nam, sparky; there are rules!).

I crossed out the offending lines and resubmitted the paperwork. they accepted it. they knew. and I knew. and they knew I knew ;)

non-competes are illegal in most states. don't ever sign anything with a non-compete on it. you have the RIGHT to earn bread each day, to live on, dammit.

Except in this case, it's an agreement to not poach.

A non-compete prevents an employee from working at a competitor.
A non-poach prevents a company from actively trying to hire another company's employees.

The difference is, a non-compete prevents employees from willingly seeking employment elsewhere, which is illegal. A non-poach prevents employers from actively trying to "steal" employees. In a non-poach, employees are free and willing to seek employment at the other company.

In this case, it would keep Palm from actively recruiting people from Apple, and Apple from actively recruiting from Palm. It does not prevent any Apple employee who wants to work at Palm from seeking employment at Palm on their own volition, and vice versa. Hell, Apple employees are free to work at Microsoft, if they wish, because there was no non-paoch agreement (that we know of) between the two companies.

It's the same deal between Apple and Google. Apple agrees not to recruit people from Google, and vice-versa, but individual employees are still free to leave and join the other.

These non-poaching agreements aren't really a big deal - they don't prevent employees from leaving and joining the other company (or any other). It just prevents companies from actively targeting employees at the other company. Examples include say, setting up a little booth off campus (but where employees walk by anyhow) offering jobs to them, having headhunters that will then call employees at their desks, or putting up billboards saying stuff like "Apple employee? Come work for Palm!" in full view of the Apple campus (EA did this to Radical - rented a billboard right outside the Radical offices).

At worst, it's a form of collusion between two companies which might be used to keep salaries low, but there's enough other companies out there that employees can work for.

It's like two car dealerships agreeing not to steal business away from each other - the customer is free to shop between the two (and haggle), but one dealer won't go and say "buy a car from me instead of this guy!" to customers visiting the other guy's lot.

Re:How could that not be illegal (1, Insightful)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147655)

First, this is about another COMPANY soliciting employees, "on the clock" from competition, specifically knowing what projects they work on and what knowledge they have.. way different than an employee non-compete. Even non-competes are legal when properly limited in scope and duration... like telling iPhone OS devs they can't work on Pre is EXACTLY what NCs are for.

It's bordering on unethical to employees to hire them away from working on one type of phone project so your company can work on another, competing phone... or on tying your phone to that other company's software sync product (hint, hint) Jobs can always buckle down and start suing the individual employees that leave for violation of trade secrets for vast sums of money (a la RIAA) ... but that's messy and mean (but totally legal, and ethical) better to agree not to poach between companies, and to avoid appearance of unethical behavior from employers asking for info they shouldn't have, or from employees sharing "trade secrets", neither of which is close to a "monopoly" on smartphones right now, and save on IP Lawyer bills later.

Fuck you, employers (4, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#29145983)

This is why you never, ever trust an employer to do right by you. All the incentives are aligned the wrong way, and to rise high in a company, you practically have to be a slick sociopath. The same guy that asks you how your day went by the water cooler would have you chained to a desk 14 hours to day if the law would let him get away with it.

Speaking of getting screwed - why are there specific regulations in the federal labor laws that exempt "certain computer workers" from overtime pay [flsa.com] ?

Re:Fuck you, employers (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146227)

All the incentives are aligned the wrong way, and to rise high in a company, you practically have to be a slick sociopath.

zero diffs between this and politics.

get far enough along in either politics or mgmt and you're a slick sociopath.

every ceo or high level mgr I've met has been a case of 'shake hands with him and afterwards you have to count your fingers'.

power corrupts. duh. no one is above it, either. practically no one (its very rare to find someone who can survive all that power and not have it ruin them).

Re:Fuck you, employers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29147097)

Speaking of getting screwed - why are there specific regulations in the federal labor laws that exempt "certain computer workers" from overtime pay [flsa.com] ?

Isn't it obvious? Because there was lobbying by one or more major companies, and like the closet masochists they generally are, IT professionials never mounted a concerted challenge while the law was drafted!* It always amazes me how on Slashdot there are several hundred posts about any threat (real or precieved) of government infrignment of individual rights, yet there are a paltry few (such as yourself) that even notice large corporations and companies can pose a similar threat if unchallenged. I guess the possibility of de facto economic serfdom is acceptable to the majority of Slashdotters, provided it's only an employer that acting like a liege-lord and not a government.

*Note: I'm an Electrical Engineer, but I've worked closely with IT departments in the past.

Re:Fuck you, employers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29147691)

The specific regulations are there because "professionals" are treated differently than rank-and-file workers. "Professionals" are people like managers who supposedly don't need the protection of the wage laws. Unfortunately, having a college degree was the sign of a "professional." Today, when a much higher percentage of people have college degrees, it does not (perhaps) mean as much with respect to how you are treated as it used to.

For example, I work for a system integrator, and I am supposed to be a "salaried" employee (exempt from hour wage protections). This is supposed to mean that I get paid my salary no matter how many hours per week I work, although I am expected to work around 40.

This is where the system breaks down, because what it really means is that if I work more than 40 hours/week, I get paid for 40 (but my company can often bill out my actual hours). If I work less than 40, the company only pays me for the hours that I work (gee, how can we pay you for 40 hours when you only worked 32??). So I'm not really "salaried" even though my possession of a college degree makes me "professional" and the company gets to play the game their way.

My wife, on the other hand, is also an IT professional but works for a non-contractor company. She is truly salaried, and as long as she comes in for the day, she gets paid for the day. She gets sick days, not hours. She works 40 hours/week usually - some times more, some times less - but still gets paid her regular salary no matter what.

Re:Fuck you, employers (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147897)

This is where the system breaks down, because what it really means is that if I work more than 40 hours/week, I get paid for 40 (but my company can often bill out my actual hours). If I work less than 40, the company only pays me for the hours that I work (gee, how can we pay you for 40 hours when you only worked 32??).

Your company can only reduce your pay in full-day increments. Deducting for partial-day absences is illegal [flsa.com] ("hrm, well, you came in late on Wednesday, so we're only paying you for 38 hours this week"):

With some exceptions, the base pay of a salary basis employee may not be reduced based on the "quality or quantity" of work performed (provided that the employee does "some" work in the work period). This usually means that the base pay of a salary basis employee may not be reduced if s/he performs less work than normal, if the reason for that is determined by the employer. For example, a salary basis pay employee's base pay may not be reduced if there is "no work" to be performed (such as for a plant closing or slow period), and a salary basis employee's base pay may not be reduced for partial day absences. However, employers may "dock" the base pay of salary basis employees in full day increments, for disciplinary suspensions, or for personal leave, or for sickness under a bona fide sick leave plan (as for example if the employee has run out of accrued sick leave).

IANAL, but if your employer is doing that to you, you should be able to sue them into oblivion.

Re:Fuck you, employers (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 5 years ago | (#29148087)

Law has nothing to do with it. Employees would just avoid the place.

This is why I like Jobs (1)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146063)

He has class. The guy wanted to leave, and he let him without begging or throwing chairs.

Oh, Jobs is probably just worried... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29146177)

that Rubinstein will exploit any Apple secrets that he knows of. I had a feeling Apple would try and do this.

Good thing I am a PC though...

Employer's Perspective (2, Interesting)

dbet (1607261) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146475)

The more rotation of new employees you have, the more training and orientation they need, the less productivity you get out of your staff. On the flip side, this can be self-correcting because employers will look unfavorably at someone who has changed jobs 6 times in the last 8 years, encouraging people to pick their jobs carefully and stay a while.

Working For The Man (3, Informative)

darkvizier (703808) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146521)

People don't work for Palm. They work for Jon Rubinstein.

Interesting... I used to work for a guy like that. I and several people I talked to joined the company solely based upon our interview with him. After he got let go following a dispute with upper management, most of those under him left as well. He was somewhat notorious for ignoring the anti compete policies and having a band of loyal followers where ever he went.

The guy cared about the people under him, and would try to help them advance their careers. Their appreciation of that was only natural. Combine that with a strong sense of direction and a willingness to take command and you've got a pretty effective leader. Only problem is getting his direction to line up with the business... so maybe guys like that just belong at the top, or running their own gig.

Re:Working For The Man (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147081)

The guy cared about the people under him, and would try to help them advance their careers.

I'd work for a guy like that - having worked for so many who aren't at all like that.

Not unusual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29146683)

I know for a fact that a certain large-ish hardware company has an OEM agreement with a certain very-large-ish company that involves not hiring employees away from each other.

The people ranting about antitrust and collusion don't have a clue what they're talking about. Companies make strategic agreements all the time - advertising, technology, manufacturing, patent cross-licensing. Antitrust only comes into it when markets are threatened. Last I looked, Blackberry still dominated the smartphone market.

Some of them just can't stand Jobs. (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146899)

I know someone who moved from the iPhone project to Palm. He was at a high enough level to be screamed at by Steve Jobs in person, and he didn't like that. He waited until the iPhone shipped, then left for a company with sane management.

Re:Some of them just can't stand Jobs. (1)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147959)

Incoming anonymous poster discovery lawsuit, duck!

If I Had Worked For Any Of These Companies... (2, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#29146995)

If I had worked for any of these companies and found out that I was now a pwned slave to them with no ability to move to another strong company worth working for I'd want the Feds to clean their clocks out -- and give me my share of the damages!

How many PHBs here were rubbing their hands together with glee at review time knowing that the employee they were about to dump on had no option to move to any other comparable company no matter what they were told?

Re:If I Had Worked For Any Of These Companies... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29147545)

Actually, it makes me think that working for palm might be awesome.
Supposedly palm shot down apple about it.
Further proof to me that Steve Jobs is the devil.
Apple is just as predatory as Microsoft they just have a much slicker marketing team.
Probably why they charge four times for the same laptop that I just bought from asus.

Funny... Not. (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147355)

"Likely Illegal"

"Mostly Harmless"

"Somewhat Pregnant"

Oh yea, it's illegal. We're not harmless. You are or you are not, whether you know it or not.

This will be fun. Our current Administration could take this opportunity to start exercising some antitrust muscles and spank some bad boys and girls.

I find it annoying (2, Interesting)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147425)

that if this were microsoft, people would be yelling and screaming, and calling ballmer an evil bastard.
But noooo.... since this is apple- half the freaking people will defend them even if they're being evil.
Look- it does not matter how shiny or great your new mac is- the corporation that made it is just as underhanded and evil as its main competitor, just less successful at being evil.

a ridiculously hagiographic article (4, Insightful)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147875)

This wrap-up article appears to be a Palm piece designed to attach them more firmly to Apple in people's minds. Trying to imply Palm is so great that Apple is trying to stop them and also imply that Palm is just like Apple, in fact they have half of Apple's engineers!

The real kicker is the last part. "These people work for Rubenstein". Yeah, maybe that's true for Mike Bell. Pete Alexander (who used to work for Mike Bell) just quit Apple (was forced out) and will be working at Palm within 3 months.

But there are a lot of people for whom this doesn't apply. I used to work for Rubenstein and I can tell you he's so much not a people person it's ridiculous. He makes 2000-era Al Gore look personable. He would periodically get up and address the team and he would say things that clearly showed he didn't any real connection to us or even know what we were doing. For example, he once rallied us by saying the software/hardware release we just did was the best one we had ever done. The whole crowd groaned because we knew it wasn't, that it was pushed out the door and in fact we had a plans for a near-term emergency .0.1 update and a rapidly following .0.2 update.

Maybe if you work directly for the guy day-to-day you can form an attachment to him, but to anyone lower down in the ranks, it isn't the same.

As to why Steve Jobs "let" Rubenstein leave, I'm sure it was similar reasons as why Tony Fadell left. Because both realized they wouldn't be the next CEO of the company. Steve Jobs only action then of "letting" them leave was to not step aside and let Rubenstein or Fadell be CEO. Rubenstein got out, and lo and behold he's now the CEO of Palm.

See Slashdot! (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 5 years ago | (#29147981)

Apple is just as evil as any other corporation...actually, it is more evil than most!

That being said, I still want an iPhone! Please come out with a 4G LTE phone on Verizon!

We don't know the details. (1)

qazwart (261667) | more than 5 years ago | (#29148111)

There are two types of anti-poaching agreements.

The first states that if an employee worked at company "A", they can't be hired by company "B". The second states that company "B" won't call up people they know who work for company "A" and offer them jobs. If that employee goes to company "B" on their own accord, that's fine. It's just that company "B" can't openly recruit company "A" employees.

Apple's anti-poaching agreement with Google was of the second kind. Apple wouldn't try to recruit currently active Google employees and Google wouldn't actively recruit Apple employees. If an Apple employee went over and applied to Google for a job, that employee would be fair game for Google to hire, and visa-versa. I am assuming that Apple wanted a similar agreement with Palm. Apple doesn't want employees who are unhappy with their job. What they don't want is a competitor simply hiring whole departments away from Apple which is sort of what happened with the Palm Pre division.

What's the source? (1)

Logic and Reason (952833) | more than 5 years ago | (#29148145)

It's amazing that no one here has so much as questioned the source for this report. The Bloomberg article doesn't say anything specific about what kind of source they have, except that it involves "communications between the two executives obtained by Bloomberg".

I don't have a good feel for how reliable Bloomberg is on stuff like this, but surely this kind of allegation merits the benefit of the doubt until we get a little more solid info about the source, no?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?